Global Warming Article in TIME

[Saul Trabal]

Time Global Warming Article

There's a small ad you'll have to get through before you read this article, but it's worth it.

A rather sobering read. I'd like to get your thoughts.

 

[Saul Trabal]

As of this writing-123 views, and no comments??

:blink:

 

[Greg Campbell]

As of this writing-123 views, and no comments??

:blink:
[/b]

Well I DID go looking for it at the store this evening. It's not yet reached distribution 'round here.

Having quickly read the whole thing on-line, I have to say that it's just another Big Media conglobulation of vague generalities and questionable causal logic. It's a fine example of today's horrible 'journalism.' Discussion of real data, short-vs-long term weather trends, the state of scientific theory, and whatnot are completely missing. The piece made absolutely no attempt to explain any of the possible GW mechanisms in any depth. "We had a big hurricane in Australia, so there MUST be GW." :blink:

In many ways, this parallels Doswell's media 'rant' in another thread. Time clearly had a defined agenda, and the story did all it could to support it. It's no different from the typical Limbaugh rant - there is the same lack of data, hard logic, and journalistic integrity.

Hey, whatever sells.....

 

[Bill Tabor]

I agree with Greg. Regardless of if GW is actually occuring or not this guy certainly presented it the wrong way. Who died and made him the worlds self proclaimed declarer or the reality of global warming? Man made global warming is now an admitted and agreed upon fact? I haven't heard so. :lol: I admit there is a lot of bad evidence that points to it; however this could still be part of the natural warmup even if it is accelerating....that may be a natural process too. But yeah, it was hardly scientific. An iceburg breaks away here, a big hurricane there, and polar bears having to swim further and suddenly it's the end of the world man! Run for the hills!

 

[Jeff Snyder]

Even if it is by natural process, there is very little doubt in the scientific community that global warming is real and is occurring. I don't think you'll find many researches who will say that global warming is not occurring. The real debate lies in how much of an influence humans are having in the warming, and how much of the warming is occurring naturally. IMO, it makes sense to assume that humans have some impact given the tons, and tons, and tons, and tons, and tons, and tons of greenhouse gases spewed into the atmosphere every year for the past 80 years. Some simple chemistry experiments can show that some gases are indeed greenhouse gases, with a property to absorb and/or re-emit energy / radiation. Now, there may be a natural tendency for the earth to be warming, but the extremely rapid rise in the rate of warming seen in the past 100 years coincides nicely with the rise of industrialism and the rate at which CO2 and other greenhouse gases have risen. I guess I'm getting into the whole global warming debate again (LOL we've had how many on ST in the past year? :lol: ), so I'll stop.

I am reminded of Doswell's recent essay about "damage porn" LOL.

 

[Scott Olson]

It's not supposed to be a scientific journal. Though there are definately some liberties taken I still think that if this sort of doomsday scenario is what it takes for people to take Global Warming seriously, then I have no problem with it. Global Warming has already been debated in several recent threads so I won't drudge through the data again but I have absolutely no problem with what this article is trying to accomplish. Which is raising basic awareness and showing that there will be consquences for ignoring this issue and credible of signs of Global Warming being identified.

 

[Tyler Allison]

Being a member of a tree hugger group locally in my area and a conservative republican (oh my!) I have to say Jeff you are the first person I know who has explained the facts correctly.

Is global warming happening? Yes

Does it mater? Unknown

Them's the facts. All the research in the past 20 years have been attempting to identify global warming....just now are they starting to research why it's warming and how much maters. The "why" and "how much maters" part is what is currently in dispute within the scientific community.

 

[David Wolfson]

I'm not impressed by the depth of the article. But the apparent speed with which a number of independent predicted indicators of global warming are increasing is pretty alarming. Hopefully humans are not the cause, but it's looking pretty likely that we are.

 

[Saul Trabal]

Wasn't the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica a result of pollution?

 

[Marc Austin]

I enjoyed the article. Yes, it was general, and it might have been a "hype you up about global warming" kind of article, but you know what... no average Joe is going to pick up this magazine and pour through pages and pages of scientific data to verify the arguments this article is making. America is a country that wants immediate answers, no guessing, no reading through papers about global warming and weather patterns, etc. In Time Magazine, it's going to be general with a few specific mentions. I really am tired of people ignoring GW. Every time that I hear someone try to disprove that GW is occuring it's something absolutely rediculous like, "We broke the record low temperature for today, so clearly Global Warming isn't valid." I'm not even going to argue.. it's pointless. Everyone is pretty much set in their ways, and it's going to take a hell of a disaster/disasters to make people believe that GW is real, and we have an effect on it. That's all I'm going to say about it.

 

[Justin Turcotte]

Not a bad article but certainly one dimensional. The cover story actually did an excellent job putting some of the climate science in laymans terms (such as the discussion with feedback mechanisms). Of course, humans and greenhouse gasses are always strictly to blame in these hyped articles. Little effort is put in to discuss alternative mechanisms. I don't doubt for a moment that there is some human impact but I also have a reasonable knowledge of natural climate variabity. I really wish there was more media attention put forth in the latter but that isn't the sexy story.

This site has a wealth of counterpoints including numerous referreed journal summaries. It is worth a look to get a different view of what you constantly hear in the mainstream media. It is not a political hack shack but rather a solid source of information. CO2 Science

This was one of their interesting summaries on the urban heat island in Barrow, Alaska (of all places).
The Urban Heat Island of Barrow, Alaska

Hinkel, K.M., Nelson, F.E., Klene, A.E. and Bell, J.H. 2003. The urban heat island in winter at Barrow, Alaska. International Journal of Climatology 23: 1889-1905

 

[Greg Campbell]

This site has a wealth of counterpoints including numerous referreed journal summaries. It is worth a look to get a different view of what you constantly hear in the mainstream media. It is not a political hack shack but rather a solid source of information. CO2 Science

[/b]

No offence, but I beg to differ. It's clearly got a strong agenda, and their science seems shaky at best. Consider this quote, and the accompanying graph. (This was the first article I read.) http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...onoftheweek.jsp

This issue's Temperature Record of the Week is from Circleville, OH. During the period of most significant greenhouse gas buildup over the past century, i.e., 1930 and onward, Circleville's mean annual temperature has cooled by 1.13 degrees Fahrenheit. Not much global warming here!

"Golly, Homer! Not much GW going on here! Yuk, yuk, yuk."
Even IF this city was truly cooling, it would NOT be anything more than a single data point in the big picture. GW is/will be about large scale climactic changes - the temp in any given Podunkville is largely irrelevant.

Now, look at the graph they trott out as proof... see anything funny?

They take a best linear fit, being careful to include the cooling trend that ran up to ~1970. Clearly, the last 30 years have shown a marked upturn in temps. Is this recent slope increase GW? I don't know, and neither do they! (IMO, it's quite possible. The same 30 year surge IS largely global in scope.) That doesn't stop them from ignoring a strong trend and (ab)using that data to support the desired conclusion. :angry:

If that one piece is any indication, the site is junk, IMO.

-Greg

 

[T. W. Miller]

The Time magazine article is like most media hype biased to limited viewpoint. As already stated, some of the supporting research for their article is irrelevant toward illustrating a climate scale issue. Unfortunately, the average reader does not realize whether or not a specific reference is pertinent. All these type of general public media stories do is further confuse or mislead the average person. Statistics can be used to reflect whatever bias one wishes. These mass reader publications would benefit the general public if they included more diversity in their view and discussed all known possible reasons for GW; provide options for people to think about. Unfortunately, mass media has lost the ideology of reporting all the facts to inform their readers rather than only portraying the viewpoint of the management (used to be called editorials).

Reality is Earth has been globally warming since end of last ice age (~10,000 or more years ago) and humans certainly had no influence towards that, let alone start it. I believe humans are contributing to the accelaration of global warming; however, unknown with any certainty as to extent and whether really matters in the grand scheme of change.

 

[Doren Berge]

Reality is Earth has been globally warming since end of last ice age (~10,000 or more years ago) and humans certainly had no influence towards that, let alone start it. I believe humans are contributing to the accelaration of global warming; however, unknown with any certainty as to extent and whether really matters in the grand scheme of change.
[/b]

I'm in agreement here. What's unclear is if or how much we are accelerating.

Regardless of what the cause, or who is the cause or how bad it really is, or if it exists at all – What puzzles me is the logic of absolution. Just because many smart people disagree on the extent, somehow we are to be absolved of the problem? Forget politics and agendas. Doesn't it make sense to consider what might be done about it instead of finger pointing and accusing others of having an agenda? Hand wringing and finger wagging is always a path to failure.

 

[Bill Tabor]

From what I've seen, I don't really doubt GW is occuring, and no doubt CO2 is going way up too. My point however was that the author of the article is declaring that it is here and it is MAN made. We are to blame. However as I said there is no official widely held opinion or proof of that (specifically) as far as I know. Since we do put something into the system no doubt we have some effect, but the question is are we responsible for 90% of the big increase since the industrial revolution occurred, or are we only responsible for say (example) .5%. If it is a natural process which is occurring and I believe everyone agrees that it has been warming up since the end of the last ice age, then we have to establish how much man is to blame for the extent of change and if that change is really bad. Bad can be relative depending on where you live. It may be that in the 'natural' non human interference form of GW that at certain temperatures processes could be at work that quickly increase temperature or CO2. These processes now, may not be identical to what might have happened 20 million years ago when the Earth might have had much more lush vegetation or whatever. In other words there can be variables that we haven't yet established or ruled out. One such variable might be the output of our star The Sun 20 million years ago versus now.

Now, with all that said, I personally suspect that we are a fairly large part of the problem simply because the big rise in temp / CO2 coincides with the industrial revolution. However my point is that we are all just assuming that. No one has yet proven it.

On the other hand whether GW is good or bad might perhaps be debated as well. Chasers might like to see more tornadoes and hurricanes, and Farmers in Canada might like to grow wheat - just an example. I think there could potentially be some 'good' things to come of GW, but of course if Methane is released from the ocean and all humans and animals die I think we could all agree on the defintion that is bad. Either way the Earth will go on. It will still be here. It will rebound and continue - unabated even without us.